Are Budget Bolt Action Rifles More Accurate Now Than In the Past

[dpastordan]

In the 1970's I noted that the difference between the budget rifles and the classics was often the stock (birch vs walnut) and the sights.  I was a young enlisted soldier and could not afford the higher priced Winchester 70's or Remington 700's.  I was in Sears and compared the Winchester 70 and the Sears bolt action.  It was about $100 difference and for an E4 in 1975 which was significant.  The Sears version had the model 70 action but a different stock and rear sight (Sears cost me $189).  I did not scope it for a few years but with iron sights I could put 3 shots into a 3" group at 100 yards.  When I put a Weaver 3X scope on it - the group shrank to about 1-2".  When my house was robbed in 1980 and it was stolen....I bought a Stevens 110-E with 4X scope (cost me $149).  I averaged between 1 1/2" to 2" 3 shot groups at 100 yards.  The only improvement was to put on a 3x9 Weaver on it.  I bought a Remington 788 in 7-08 for my brother-in-law.  It was just as accurate as my Stevens.  I have owned two Stevens 340's over the years and they both shot 1"groups at 75 yards - using peep sights.  I spent less than $150 for each of them.
We are talking hunting accuracy.   In the 1960's if a rifle shot 3" groups at 100 yards with a scope or 5"with iron sights - that was certainly adequate for shooting deer and larger game.  I believe American manufacturers have done a commendable jobs since the beginning to strive to make accurate guns for the customers.  Ruger is the only make that I have had bad experiences with .... that is in the accuracy department.  I had three Ruger 77's that did not shoot as well as others.  I had one in .30-06 that I never could zero, a .243 that shot about 3" with scope at 100 yards and a .223 that shot about the same. 
 
 

[Spanky]

Do the site rules about making personal attacks apply to this forum or not?
 
 
 
Spanky

[Zachary]

Guys, I'm going to put on my moderator hat and step in.  While I belive in freedom of speech, please be respectful of one another and be careful that your posts are not personal attacks.
 
Zachary

[Swampman]

I believe all rifles are much more accurate today than they were in the past.  It wasn't until recently that you could buy a rifle that would shoot MOA or better right out of the box.

[scootrd]

I believe way too much emphasis is placed on MOA for hunting rifles. Paper Punching is fun , trying to improve accuracy fun , but the true test comes in wood and field.   

Accuracy to me ,encompasses knowing my hunting rifle  and my limits with that rifle, becoming comfortable shooting it under real world scenarios ie: standing, kneeling , Prone etc.    So once I get what I feel is an acceptable grouping,  I push away from the bench and practice extensively under non bench conditions.

Sure everyone wants to claim 1 MOA or tighter under controlled benchrest conditions , But most of that doesn't amount to a hill of beans when you hit the woods. In my opinion , 1 MOA is just not necessary in a hunting rifle. Quite honestly I believe any rifle I have ever owned has been much more accurate a shooter than I could ever possible exploit.
 
But hey the MOA BUZZ sure keeps the gun rag writers employed.

If you want a more accurate Bolt action ( budget or otherwise ), practice , practice , practice under real world conditions.

JMHO , Your mileage may vary..

Semper FI.

[Swampman]

Saw a fellow post the other day that his nephew's Remington 770 in .270 was shooting less than 3" at 300 yards with the package scope that came on it.  These are the good ole days.

[gr8ful]

I bought my son a Savage 200 in 25-06 for christmas, put a Bushnell 3200 3-9X40 on it, and with Hornady Custom 117gr sst's it is an honest MOA rifle from the bench.  It is a bit harder without the accu-trigger, but he doesnt seem to mind, and the stock is a butt uggly grey piece o plastic, but hey its easy to clean the mud off of, and when we shoot at the camp he claims bragging rights more often than not.  I personally think Savage upped the ante back in the late 80's and the rest have had to make improvements to keep up.

[Swampman]

I've seen plenty of Remington $399.00 package rifles shoot 1/4 MOA with factory ammo right out of the box.  That design hasn't changed in about 60+ years.  They seem to be keeping up pretty good.

[gr8ful]

quarter MOA thats .250" at 100 yrds WOW gotta love them swamp Remingtons!!! 

[scootrd]

The majority of hunting rifles will shoot better than the majority of their rifle owners are capable of shooting them in actual hunting conditions  -  except of course,  on the internet, where it seems every shooter claims sub MOA.   

[Swampman]

Since the 721/722/700 came into being nothing else has been able to hold a candle in the area of accuracy.  Everyone knows this, but some don't like to admit it.

[charles p]

I expect newer rifles are built with better machinery and are more accurate, but don't forget the old Rem 788 with their fast lock time.  Those were very accurate rifles.

[Brithunter]

I expect newer rifles are built with better machinery and are more accurate, but don't forget the old Rem 788 with their fast lock time.  Those were very accurate rifles.

Charles,


    They like to tell us that modern machinery is better sadly this is not always the case as they too cut corners to save money. There are more than one level of repeatability and accuracy in CNC controls. If you want high precision and repeatability at that level then the CNC control system that does it costs way more than a normal run of the mill operating system. Again the system is only as good as the base machine it's fitted too. Put it on a poorly made machine and it will never work as well as it should.


We see it claimed often that because it's made on CNC machinery it must be better. That is a lie, a blatant lie and they know it but it looks good in adverts and the normal punter who has a vague idea what CNC means is taken in.

[Zachary]

As a moderator, I have removed some posts as I deem them to more in line with personal attacks than responsive to the topic.  Graybeard may take further action if this continues.

[17452]

My Marlin XS7 in .308 is a sub MOA rifle with cheap Federal 150gr factory ammo.  I can easily cover groups with a nickel and some shots are touching.

My son's XS7 in 7mm08 shoots the same right out of the box.

[Spanky]

I checked out one of the Marlin XS7's in 308 the other day. It was the varmint model with the heavy barrel. Nice rifle and I liked the trigger. He had a wicked nice kevlar stocked Remington in 22-250 too. I'd like to add the 22-250 to my collection.
 
 
 
Spanky

[1armoured]

I think maybe our expectations are greater in these modern times.
Would be nice to see a chart comparing prices from 'then and now', and the equivalent buying power.


There seem to be a plethora of budget rifles about these days,

most eminating from the old Eastern bloc, Serbian, Czech, Russian, and of course the Chinese.
There are others making firearms, like Brazil, and the Phillipines, too,
and of course, Japan, and Canada.
I wonder sometimes if some of the 'U.S.' made rifles are assembled from some parts outsourced overseas ?


My experience has not been with the budget 'budgets', but a Japanese Howa made Weatherby Vanguard 'Custom Varminter' (also known as a 'red mist'), with the shorter heavy barrel in .223, and composite stock .
Not very impressed with the creepy trigger, so I replaced it with a Timney.
After that I was happy with the results off the bench, under MOA as expected, although I expected to do a bit better, being used to owning more 'quality' (expensive) shooting irons.


My other 'budget' foray was a Savage Model 40 in .22Hornet with Accutrigger and laminate stock. (classed as a 'walkin Varminter')
(I did hear that they were made in Canada ?)
It has a part sleeved action and heavy'ish barrel.
Probably the most accurate Hornet that I have ever seen,
but I have seen a bit of criticism alsewhere around the rifle's quality, so maybe you just takes your chances on a good one !
For me, the 3.5lb trigger is a bit heavy for off the bench groups, but a bit of good trigger control and attention to hold sorts that all out.


Now you might not consider those 'budget' rifles, but they were certainly below the mainstream pricing at the time.


I also think that with all the budgets, you takes your chances. You may get a good one or a dud.
If you buy from a reputable source, there is always the option to take it back.


cheers,
SS

[Brithunter]

Ahhhh I see one must not point out the blatant crap spouted by some even when one can post and paste that very same rubbish nor the fact that like a politition the same person can do back flips U-turns in the very same thread.